Upon migrating my old web interface with extensive use of jQuery Tmpl, some of my templates have ceased to work. Further investigation shows that the templates not working are the ones starting and ending with TR tags (i.e. table rows getting appended to an existing table). The source text just gets removed by the jQuery Tmpl script! If I use the TR tags in a broader context like wrapped in a table etc everything works just fine, but as soon as they are used in an isolated template, they get wiped out.
working example:
<script id="workingTemplate" type="text/x-jQuery-tmpl" >
<table>
<tr><td>this works</td></tr>
</table>
</script>
not working example:
<script id="notWorkingTemplate" type="text/x-jQuery-tmpl" >
<tr><td>this does not work</td></tr>
</script>
The first example renders the full HTML code when checking with Firebug, the latter renders an empty SCRIPT tag.
The difference between the old and the new web interface that could in any way be related to the templating is a change from jQuery 1.5.2 to 1.8.2. I haven't tried running anything below 1.7.2 since this is where the .on() function got added, and the new framework has an extensive use of this method.
Are there any workarounds for this problems except the most obvious (= changing templating framework to something still maintained)?
EDIT:
When loading the template from a string, the content stays intact,
$.template( "tableRowTemplate",'<tr><td>this works</td></tr>');
$.tmpl("tableRowTemplate", data).appendTo('TABLE#mytable TBODY');
but is unfortunately no good for me since my templates are a tad more complicated than the examples (server side dynamics etc...). It does give some hints though. Obviously, it is the initialization of jQuery Tmpl that removes the content if it does not comply with something to me unknown. Maybe jQuery.fn.domManip?
Related
I'm trying to extract just the html, without the encapsulating <!doctype>, <html> and <body> tags.
I've seen this question asked before many times, and the answer is always to exclude the "fullpage" plugin.
However, that plugin is no longer used in tinymce 6.
It seems that the classic editor version of tinymce now always uses an <iframe>, and those unfortunate encapsulating tags are passed along as a consequence.
For the sake of robustness I don't want to have to strip them out in the back end if I can help it; is there a way to extract just the html content in tinymce 6?
You would need to provide more details on what you are doing when you extract the content from TinyMCE.
In my quick testing simply using getContent() to extract the data from TinyMCE does not include any of those tags:
https://fiddle.tiny.cloud/MChaab/3
I have seen bunch of HTML email templates example and all of them use <table> element for layout. Is there any specific reason for using <table>? I tried making one without it and it works for me. Should I be worried that it might break for someone else with different browser?
The main reason tables are still used nowadays is to support Outlook 2007/2010/2013. Those versions use Microsoft Word engine to render HTML, and it's quite a mess. It has a limited support for CSS (no float or position for example), and some CSS properties are only supported on some specific HTML elements. For example, padding is supported on a , but not on a . And even when you could theorically use padding on more semantical elements (like tags), or use margin on elements instead, Word's rendering engine is still massively bugged and can have unpredictable behavior with such HTML and CSS code. Thus, developers find it easier to just use instead.
But here's the thing : if you don't feel like you need to support Outlook 2007/2010/2013, then you can absolutely ditch tables and use better code instead. And even if you need to support it, simple one-column layouts can be done without tables. The reason your template works in Outlook 2011 is that this version (for Mac only) uses WebKit rendering engine (just like in Safari or Apple Mail).
Referring to this old post(why-is-it-still-recommended-to-use-tables-for-email-structure) and some of my own experiments:
We can definitely use HTML tags and not just <table> tag. It gets rendered well in modern browsers. I have personally experimented with Chrome ( which most probably means it works on all chromium based browsers ) and Safari.
Another thing I noticed is, the email clients stripped the template and removed all tags except the main content. In other words, it only rendered what's inside the <body> tag and removed other tags like <html>, <head> including the <body> tag itself. So I don't use those tags in my template at all.
I've been trying to use the vue-router package for days without figuring out how it works, and it kind of drives me crazy.
My problem: I want to make a Single Page Application using VueJS, and I have taken the vue-router package since it is the routing package officially supported by the VueJS development team.
I've read a lot of "getting started" articles, lots of them start by hard-writing the template like this:
const Foo = { template: '<div>foo</div>' }
But since I'm not really into writing my entire template between those two quotes marks, I searched for a way to write my template into a file, and then load the file's content into a JS variable.
It seems that it's possible to write the templates into .vue files, and then load them into variables using:
import App from './App.vue';
But when I do this that way I get this error: "Unexpected token import".
I'm really frustrated by that, haven't they thought about a really convenient way for the template loading to be compatible on every browser? What did I miss?
I suggest you look into Vue CLI for helping you set up a desired scaffold for your project. Based on the options you choose you can end up with a webpack backed template along with the vue-router included. Webpack will take care of bundling your project so you don't encounter errors like that one.
Generally what you want to do is use vue files. A vue file is divided into three parts, and would look something like this:
<template>
// Your HTML for this component goes here
</template>
<script>
// Your JS for this component goes here
</script>
<style>
// Your CSS for this component goes here
</style>
Once you have your components organized like this, handling routing is pretty straightforward. You designate a file to contain the router object that handles the routing.
These are pretty much basics, so I won't go into details here but you can learn a lot more on the official Vue docs page. Here is also an example project that shows how to construct simple components in vue files and how to properly use the vue-router.
I am trying to create a Editor component that will take inline javascript.
I understand that I can use clientlibs folder for loading JS, but some of the video CDN folks require you to put embed tags with JavaScript in the editor, and I think some of that is also used for rapid development. Currently with the state of RTE, I cannot put a script <script/> tag even after extending it, as it strips it out and only takes the html tags.
Could you please provide any insight if this could be doable in AEM 6.1
Here's what I have tried:
I looked at several post didn't got a clue
extended RTE using Adobe's documentation, but see a script button, that only takes html tags.
looked for hacks that could tell me what part of the code is tripping out </script> tags or could not execute js.
looked for some components out there that does that, found nothing
so far.
The majority of the pages I author contain both HTML and PHP. It would appear that in Netbeans you can have syntax highlighting for one or the other by setting the associated file types.
Coming from Notepad++, I've always taken for granted the fact that I could use php, css, html, javascript all in one file and retain syntax highlighting for all of them.
Is this possible in Netbeans?
I think the answer here is that Netbeans DOES support multiple language, but it will only get it right if there's something hinting at the "inner" language. When I exit PHP with ?> NetBeans tends to format what comes before the next <?php as HTML automatically. Not sure if that is working for you. Maybe you were trying to get highlighting in a string like $output = "<some><html";. I think you can imagine why that second one wouldn't work.
For JS, for example, it seems to look for the <script type="text/javascript">, and stuff inside gets the JS highlighting even if the file type is PHP.
This other question has a great solution for "tricking" Netbeans into rendering your JS output by PHP into being formatted, even when your code doesn't have a <script type="text/javascript"> tag.